Imperium in imperiohttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:20:09 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngImperium in imperiohttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com
Escalation will failhttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/escalation-will-fail/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/escalation-will-fail/#respondThu, 05 May 2016 21:17:11 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=297Continue reading Escalation will fail]]>More American troops will be sent into the Mideast quagmire. We only discovered that Americans troops had been sent back to Iraq–breaking a 2011 promise by President Barck Obama–after some had been killed.

Apparently the US soldiers had been sent in when Iraqi soldiers had fled their positions. The ISIS mortars had been precisely zereoed in on the camp and our people had been set up. How many more American replacements have to die for the Iraqis who won’t fight?

Iraq’s infirmity has created a vast opportunity for Sunni radicals to surge. The Iraq Army is controlled by Shia, who live to the east of the Sunni or share lands along the Euphrates River valley.

The Shia are culturally and philosohically linked to Iran. The Saudis are Sunni-led and de facto represent the Sunnis in Iraq, who share the radical sect of Wahabi.

The idea that Iraq can persist as an independent nation is a complete fantasy. The U.S. intervention from 2003 to 2011, and 2016-?, began without an understanding of how religion divided the Iraqis. This schism will continue to plague the country.

We brought our own cultural preconceptions to the country when we invaded without clear victory or withdrawal conditions established. This oversight has come back to haunt us. Just like the British in the 1920s, we’re caught up in trying to manage a country that is by virtue of its foreign-drawn borders not a country.

Now there’s no reason that people of different tribes and races can’t come together and manage their country, allowing all people equal rights. But largely the idea that a plural democracy can be established is a Western development.

Yes, as colonies gained independence, many borders were drawn without regard to where indigenous people lived. And places like India and Indonesia contained a vast diverse number of different kinds of people, and languages, and cultures, they have been able to govern themselves (with the Indonesian example less peacefully.)

So indigenous groups don’t have to be cleansed. Those who are different only pose a threat in the imagination of intolerant, who rule through the use of division rather than the rule of law. So overcoming ethnic and racial difference is possible, and indeed a good thing in giving the inhabitants an example of how to get along.

Tolerance isn’t compatible with religious fundamentalism. By virtue of its radical rejection of other religions and viewpoints, intolerance is a defining characteristic of fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism is clearly a reality that dominates political affiliations, borders, and legal and governmental infrastructure. What we haven’t been able to understand is how this element renders any domestic political reform based on Western principles of tolerance and pluralism doomed to fail.

Rather than being being rejected, democracy can become a tool of fundamentalists. Hitler, after all, was democratically elected. The laws he used against Jews and other purged minorities were passed by a legitimately elected and duly empowered German parliament.

Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement, saw Hitler’s rise and blamed the Western democracies for letting it happen. He believed that the horrors inflicted by the Nazis–not just on others but their own people as well–justified intervention.

Strauss’ students would later rise to occupy positions of considerable authority under the Bush administration. Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, and numerous others became key architects of our policy in the Mideast. They created a policy called Clean Break, where Islamic nations from Syria to Pakistan were targetted for regime change or destabilization.

Looking back now, it’s clear the Clean Break has succeeded in numerous countries–Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. Other targets remain–most notable among them Iran. Iran carries a great deal of significance due to comments last year by the Democratic presumptive nominee. If elected, she will continue to follow the Clean Break goal by invading Iran.

Invading Iran isn’t at all like an Iraq. Iran is a real country. It’s much bigger than Vietnam, and has impenetrable geography and an extensive air defense system, using new Soviet (oops I mean Russian) S-300 surface-to-air missiles.

The S-300 is a problem. A big problem. I don’t know if we’re even aware of how challenging it will be to overcome Iran’s defenses.

Hatred of the infidel runs deep there. The population will never subjugate themselves to rule by infidels, or any puppet colluding with the infidels. Much like Vietnam, the entire country will come together in supporting guerilla warfare as long as any infidels occupy the country.

At some point, following Strauss doctrine to its end becomes an act of treason against the Untied States. If there’s no way that a military intervention can end with a favorable outcome but rather an ignominious withdrawal a la Vietnam–ignorance isn’t a good enough excuse.

Like Iraq, after an extended period we come to realize that an Iranian occupation can’t work–nor can it ever–and that the lives sacrificed will have been in vain. It’s not the purpose of our leaders to allow the loss of so much blood and treasure needlessly, to such an unproductive outcome.

Now in order to see the foolishness and indeed willful ignorance at that, we must be able to see how our policy in Iraq has failed. And to do that, we must peel away the blinders of exceptionalism, emerge from our mistaken belief in our own fallibility, and accept that Clean Break isn’t going to work.

So it’s the process of reason that demonstrates the value of clarity. It’s the brain-dead acceptance of whatever cockamamie scheme comes out of the neocon camp that poses such a threat. It’s not the Iranians. It’s not the Iraqis (at least until after our invasion opened the door for Sunni radicals previously repressed under Saddam.)

The presumptive nominee has said that we lost no one in Libya, despite the Benghazi event which saw four Americans perish under horribly violent circumstances, televised live to the Islamic world.

More than the loss of life (and ending which could have ended so much more honorably in the simple act of a few 500 pounders, homing in on the coverage signal…perhaps) the Libyan fiasco showed how utterly out of touch our leadership is. If they can deny the loss of life in Libya, where else can the consequences of Clean Break be ignored?

The purpose of Clean Break was originally to stop the rise of a Hitler. It’s become instead a dull axe, thumping away at the branches while the root, Thoreau’s root, goes untouched.

Increasingly, Clean Break has become a domestic political goal aiming to placate Jewish and Zionist lobbies. No candidate will rise to the domestic ticket without placating these vested interests. That’s why Donald Trump is so exceptional. He appears on the surface willing to confront the failures of Clean Break and our inability to extricate ourselves from various entanglements.

We’ll see what really happens if Trump reaches the White House, an event I deem highly unlikely. He’s simply pissed off too many people. White America isn’t America any more. Perhaps the Tea Party extremists who will back him do a better job in the role of obstructionist haters than being thrust into the forefront of governance. Look no farther than Kansas and Governor Brownback to see how vital government functions have been curtailed, and public services decimated. If the only alternative to government is no government then I think most people will accept bad government.

Americans shouldn’t have to chose between the lesser or two evils. They deserve real government and a choice at the Presidential level of candidates with solid qualifications, who are capable of leading all Americans, not just those whom they agree or identify with.

This pathetic new direction in American politics encourages the further dumbing down and non-participation in the electoral process, especially among Millenials who are now the largest generation in the U.S..

The levels of political apathy and ignorance among Millenials is astounding. Part of the blame can be put on a deteriorating educational system–the U.S. is far down the list compared to other developed nations, and even some that aren’t so developed. Critical thinking is repressed and bullying is endemic among the young.

Apathy, the belief that political participation will achieve nothing, clearly serve the status quo and Establishment at the expense of the young.

Yes, it’s good for the Establishment to be able to continue ineffective or counterproductive strategies like Clean Break, but only for vested interests and only up to a point. As we’re seeing in Iraq, the longer that a flawed policy is allowed to continue–a reflection of the power of the Zionist lobby and out-of-touchness of our leaders–the more damage to the national interest.

Clearly a lag in facing the consequences of failed policies lets those responsible escape to comfy speaking engagements rather than face the political blowback. Young people, on the other hand, will reap the consequences of our failed policies for generations.

I mean how can anyone sending our soldiers into battle not understanding our enemy? The enemy, partially one of our own creation, through our interventions into Muslim lands, will not relent. Clean Break has seeded future generations of conflict as radical fundamentalists counterattack in wildly unpredictable ways. As easy as it is to order a drone attack, so too will it be a natural matter of course for the relatives of the victims to seek revenge.

The more cynical among us might assume that Iraq and Clean Break were meant to force future generations of Americans to continue a valiant struggle against Islamic people. Periodic strikes against the West will come; likely these will simply strengthen resolve to get them over there before they get us here.

Paranoia isn’t a bad outcome if it forces the U.S. into endless unwinnable wars to benefit Israel and the Military industrial Complex (with an evisceration of liberties and growth of the National Security State as a domestic bonus.)

Without any way out, I think even the Israelis would admit things will get worse. Without a way to turn it off–killing Saddam of Khaddafy didn’t help, if anything they enabled the rise of fundamentalists–the relentless use of hard power will eliminate the possibility of more peaceful results. In the nuclear age, coexistence is a necessity. (We recently learned that the Saudis have nuclear weapons, given to them by the Pakistanis.)

So it’s in the best interests of young Americans and Israelis to seek out alternatives to military intervention. Problem is, we’ve managed to aggravate so many of the Islamists that the chief source of their strength–the reason for their existence and popularity– is opposition to U.S./Israeli hegemony, which manifests itself most obviously in the use of drone strikes and other displays of hard power.

It’s amazing how even the most hardened terrorists seem like avenging angels to the powerless victims of occupation and invasion, those who’ve suffered grievously. Each reprisal will bring further interventions, which is perhaps what Clean Break really seeks to achieve–an open-ended, unwinnable crusade against Israel’s enemies.

Ending the policy will save many future Americans from the reprisals of our Mideast policy, not to mention the vast body count which will come from an Iranian invasion.

We know that:
1) NoX emissions higher than stated
2) the purchasers of the cars have been harmed
-First, by the perception that their VW would pollute less than it did
-Second, the residual, accumulated pollution that users of VW Clean Diesels put in the air without their knowing (making them an inadvertent agent of environmental destruction)

3) A fix would make the cars undesirable. Its marketing appeal drops markedly and its value too

4) Mother nature is being harmed, more so than the owners. She is due damages–more so than the owners who were simply being used/lied to–
a) …on an ongoing basis as the vehicles stay on road (more eco-destruction)
b)… if the vehicles aren’t fixed, for ongoing pollution unless they are destroyed

Buybacks and transfers to countries with fewer restrictions on emissions are a real issue. VW might be able to get around governments and regulatory bodies, but the environmental damage will continue. By selling their vehicles back, owners may not be directly responsible for their use elsewhere, but the right thing to do is not to let resale ever occur.

We also know that:
1) Many other vehicles pollute more and are not subject to testing

2) Many other vehicles manufacturers have cheated on emissions testing
How many of these are out there?
Are VW owners being singled out? If they are the problem, what about #1, above? It would be fairer to have an emissions testing protocol for all vehicles on a recurring basis.

3) States reserve to right to regulate vehicle emissions, or not
Aren’t emissions a federal issue as it impacts the entirety of the country? Not necessarily true with NoX, though CO2, yes.

For these Clean Diesel vehicles, carbon dioxide emissions are not a problem. NoX emissions are more localized (far less likely to cross state lines or impact other states.)

If it’s Utah’s job to regulate vehicle emissions in a valley in Utah, then they should undertake a course of action to regulate vehicles operating in that environment.

I suspect that regulating the commercial vehicle population in a specific area prone to NoX pollution is the most effective and cost beneficial way to see a drop in the emissions of NoX. Regulatory efforts can encourage the use of lower emission natural gas vehicles or hybrids, ditching even more NoX.

Ideally, all sources of NoX in that area need to be targeted and I don’t know if passenger vehicle emissions are the most effective regulatory target, especially only going after VWs: every vehicle would need to be accurately tested.

Regulation requires testing. The tests must be accurate or the regulatory purpose and environmental benefit are nullified.

It’s unfair to make VW owners responsible for emissions they were told that their car would not produce. This is a clear legal case for misrepresentation (at the dealer level, where the largest lawsuits will likely originate) where buyers were told by unknowing sales reps they were buying a green vehicle.

Buyback problems

Car buybacks aren’t a solution if those vehicles aren’t polluting as much as others currently on the road. Why not take the VW money to buy back some real lemons and worse polluters?

Buybacks also don’t work from an ecological perspective if the vehicle is resold and stays on the road, anywhere in the world, where they’ continue to do their damage (although less than other vehicles most likely.)

Buybacks at the Kelly Blue Book prices would not reflect any ecological consequences that VW’s betrayal of consumer trust has caused.

Buybacks at full purchase price don’t reflect the use and benefit the driver/owner has experienced. However among those who consider emissions a top priority–the environmentally sensitive–their use of the vehicle has been impinged. Their impression of VW is rightfully one of indignation.

However, compensatory damages can only occur if their owners are deprived of the use of their VWs. Except in those areas where use of these vehicles is regulated, owners are free to continue to use their vehicles but doing so constitutes a known source of environmental pollution. Thus the ecologically sensitive owner is deprived from the guiltless pleasure of driving their VW vehicle, depriving them of the use of their VWs on moral grounds.

Only the owners who feel remorse at their vehicle’s emissions would be morally bound to not use them. Those–again in states were these vehicles aren’t regulated–who feel no loss at the environmental consequences of continuing to use these vehicles are not entitled to compensatory damages, or for emotional distress, as environmental issues weren’t–and aren’t–a reason for purchase and ongoing use.

Most owners of these vehicles don’t have a second vehicle, or using an alternative means of transportation aren’t available. The sale–at depressed prices due to their regulatory baggage–of the TDI vehicle causes direct financial damage to them. So VW is on the hook for any losses in resale value, as well as up to half of any new vehicle’s value that occurs when we drive it off the lot for the first time.

NoX bad

The NoX does have an impact on people’s health and should be reduced. Under that logic, all high NoX emitters should be fixed–or taxed.

Once a vehicle is sold, after-market modifications can create higher NoX emissions, and those vehicles generally aren’t tested on an ongoing basis in most of the U.S..

To fix an emissions problem, there must be a means of testing accurately. By creating a emissions cheat, VW has committed fraud in its representations to government that its vehicles were in compliance. It is clearly liable to all the states and entities regulating emissions who tested their vehicles, or relied upon VW’s truthfulness.

These regulatory bodies have more of a claim to represent the environment than do the owners who weren’t injured as grievously. The EPA is at the front of the line. The fines and penalties for the cheat need to be directed at remedying the ecological consequences of too much NoX over the length of the vehicle’s usable lifespan.

VW has a vested interest in removing all the Clean Diesels from the road, eternally. A solution that keeps the polluting vehicles on the road–perhaps in a Third World country–doesn’t stop the ongoing damage from occurring; it’s simply the transference of the location from which NoX pollution originates.

The vehicles may be neutered with a fix to reduce their NoX emissions. But then again, why? There are plenty of other vehicles that emit more NoX, and no one is moving to fix them.

Absent an effective regulatory regime, the argument that these vehicles are worse than any others will be un-provable. Of course they produce NoX. But surely other vehicles emit more and would be a more fruitful target of regulatory scrutiny if reducing the “overproduction” –a subjective term–of NoX is the real regulatory goal.

A real nationwide regulatory scheme would work if emissions could be tested accurately. A gas tax could be put on those vehicles which use more fuel and emit more CO2. Likewise, a NoX tax could go on vehicles which operate in a vulnerable area like a valley or dense urban corridor.

Carbon taxes are more justifiable as the leading source of CO2 pollution comes from vehicles. CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas however–methane is–raising the question of whether the regulation of CO2 emissions is the best place to start.

NoX’s area of impact is not as widespread, so introducing a nationwide regulatory regime, if politically permissible, would likely not be as effective as targeting other emission sources. Nor would it be justifiable under the 10th Amendment separating the power of the federal government from that of the states.

Greener paths forward

The threat posed by global climate change justifies a nationwide regulatory regime if it reduces those emissions. The best way to prevent ecological harm is to avoid the meat industry, avoiding the production of methane and the inefficient use of land to create livestock feed.

Much of that feed is GMO and injurious to the health of the animals and the soil. Already our soils have been depleted of their nutrients and the overuse of herbicides has ruined the substrata and encouraged the rise of superweeds, not to mention many ecological impacts on bees and human health.

Factory farming with its CFOs–Combined Feeding Operations–are a noxious blight on our land, and the food supply is jeopardized by operations that require antibiotic use in the tightly confined, filthy spaces to which these poor animals are confined at length.

OK, yeah, so don’t eat meat as often. Or when you do, order grass-fed beef from family farms in your area. Or go with buffalo or elk, which may be less destructive of their pasture lands.

Requiring more vaccines forces more vaccines to be sold. It follows therefore that all vaccine makers want to force the maximum number of mandatory shots as possible.

Where are the regulations that limit the sale of mandatory vaccines to those needed to ensure the public safety?

The public interest formerly determined the scope to which industries were regulated. Now special interest groups lobby lawmakers from coast to coast, trying to change regulations in favor of the companies they represent.

What’s best for Pfizer is best for America, you might think. And in some cases the interests of both corporations and the public coincide. But the needs of the public–to be safe–aren’t the only motivation for vaccines, the profits of the vaccine makers are.

Regulatory capture occurs when industries dominate their regulators, using a variety of techniques like political donations through PACs, hiring of former regulators, and the placement of industry reps into positions,of regulatory oversight in what is know as a revolving door.

Where’s the pushback from the public?

Americans are hopelessly mystified by the vaccination process. Information is given to the public by the makers of vaccines and the governmental bodies that purport to regulate the industry.

The public is unaware how the number of vaccines required has risen so dramatically. I’ve searched for an exact source but have seen the number of required vaccines at seventy plus.

Many vaccines are combined. No one knows the cumulative impact of combining whatever nasties may be in the vaccine–remember they contain a live virus and other pathogens. By upping the quantity and frequency of vaccinations, public health has been put at greater risk.

The link is actively being suppressed in studies paid for by the vaccine industry. For as long as the vaccine money pours into advertisements, the effect on public discourse will be muted, at least in the mainstream media.

An objective observer–obviously not those who make money from having a position–would be skeptical of the lack of media exposure on the topic of the autism link, especially if they’d watched TV and saw the sheer volume of ads for pharmaceuticals.

Most of the public lack the capacity for critical thinking. So they just go along. And the price for unconditional acceptance of vaccines is high, very high. If indeed the autism rate rises, our society will be facing an entire generation of brain-damaged young people.

Vaccines have a role to play but that fact doesn’t mean that unprecedented amounts of toxic compounds in the vaccines won’t have a public health impact.

Of course the industry will claim it’s products are necessary to keep us all healthy. Whenever challenged, we’ll be told that vaccines are necessary to keep us from getting sick.

The efficacy of vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine–is highly questionable.

Vaccine whistleblower Wakefield describes how a Measles outbreak among vaccinated people indicated that the vaccine wasn’t working. So the vaccine makers simply required “booster shots” which ended up tripling their sales!

So vaccines may not inoculate their recipients from the diseases they are supposed to work for. This repudiates industry claims that vaccines are necessary to prevent disease.

As a matter of fact, vaccinated children may be more likely to become unhealthy adults. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036220_vaccinated_children_disease_allergies.html) It could be that they suffer from weakened immune systems, from the adjuvant overload. Or they might be victims of severe gut problems like Irritable Bowel Syndrome from the harsh synthetic nature of the vaccine cocktail.

Gut issues may come from GMOs and dietary deficiencies. It may not be the vaccines alone but the vaccines when they combine with some other environmental exposure or nutritional blockage.

Vaccines may not be the direct cause. However, any dispenser of mandatory vaccines is obligated to understand the impact on public health before authorizing their use. If a vaccine ups the likelihood of another event, it is incumbent upon those mandating their use to prove their safety and efficacy.

Every parent needs to judge based on the widest spectrum of information available. If vaccines are safe (however many are mandatory) then the industry should have nothing to fear.

I’ve assembled a list of articles, most of which are recent.

One bit of advice–content found on the Web may be prone to hysteria, and prone to anecdotal evidence rather than scientific proof. Remember that studies which disproves a cause and effect link IS NOT the same as proving it’s safe.

]]>https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/childrens-health-sacrificed-for-vaccine-profits/feed/0johnbpeeblesForgetting our past, dooming our futurehttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/forgetting-our-past-dooming-our-future/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/forgetting-our-past-dooming-our-future/#respondTue, 29 Mar 2016 00:42:46 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=216Continue reading Forgetting our past, dooming our future]]>American democracy has been replaced by an either or choice between an unpopular candidate in Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, who seems clinically incapable of not pissing off one group or another.

Trump is the presumptive nominee, if primary results stand. There is the possibility of a brokered convention. GOP rules don’t allow any dark horse contenders from winning their convention–the nominee must be engaged in campaigning prior to the convention.

In a smaller version of the two-party choice General Election, Trump’s only alternative inside the GOP appears to be Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a hypocrite who was born in Canada of Canadian parents. This disqualifies him from the Presidency, under the Constitution’s specific requirement that a President must be native born. Cruz was not.

The GOP could thwart the rules but Cruz’ nation of origin will be a thorny legal issue if his name makes it to the GOP ticket, even as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Two conclusions can be drawn from the lack of choices, within the GOP or in the General Election. It’s as if the Star Chamber that really runs our government–known as the Deep State–has set up Hillary to win.

I say this because of the lack of any threat to Trump clinching the nomination. If an executive with a demonstrated record of public service like Michael Bloomberg could have run, then yes, there would be choice. But it seems as if a mouth like Trump is the best they can offer.

Trump can’t win. There’s no way a candidate can piss off so many people and get their vote. And not just any people–minorities.

It’s proof the GOP has gotten completely out of touch with the changing demographics of our country. Do they know that as much as 45% of our society are minorities? Yes, that’s right: the number is well over 40% (excluding white women.)

Add it up. As I said on zerohedge.com:
“The U.S. is about 14% black (growing) 16% Hispanic (growing), Red/Native 2% (growing), Asian 8% (growing), and non-minority gay 2%+, which is over 40%. Even if by some miracle Trump can capture 20% of the minority vote, he’s facing a pissed off, very-likely-to-vote group comprising 80% of 40% or 32% of the entire electorate.”

I forgot a few groups, t00, “…Jewish Americans, who are likely to go against Trump, and Muslim Americans, too, with the latter 95%+ maybe. That’s another 5% or so opposed.”

And my conclusion was:
“So yeah you can disrespect brown or black or red or gay people in your speeches and get your way in the GOP primary but not in the general, when all the disrespected minority groups will show up in order to tee off on Trump.”

The GOP would be wise to avoid further marginalization at the polls, like what we saw in the Arizona Republican primary, where the voting machines had been cut in the greater Phoenix area. All this does is make the Republicans look less willing to accept that it’s not the 1950s any more, and that their self-imagined world view is hopelessly antiquated, however comforting to the average GOP primary voter.

States like Ohio and Florida in the General Election in 2004 disenfranchised minority voters. The problem was especially bad in Columbus, Ohio, where minority districts had their proportion of voting machines greatly reduced, making many voters wait for hours. Meanwhile voters in the whiter suburbs outside the urban core were greeted by no waiting at all. From a messaging perspective, this shows a race-based fear of minorities, and ultimately inadequacy in addressing them and their needs.

It’s no coincidence that the national election in Ohio in 2004 was run by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who famously prophesized that Bush would win his state well before the election.

Oh well, who’s counting anyway? Looking back more than a couple elections is pathologically impossible for a majority of Americans anyway. Our national conscience fades quickly although the wars we’ve started haven’t.

Leave it to teenagers not to think out the consequences of their actions. And Americans are teenagers at this stage of our national political maturation as a country.

There’s no point in telling a teenager who’s a chronic offender what punishment awaits them. You could probably even tell them that doing X will certainly lead to Y outcome–punishment– but they’ll do X anyway.

Maybe teenagers are teenagers because at that stage of their mental development they lack the brain function of older adults, and cannot grasp the consequences of their actions. I remember a study (ground-breaking when released but common knowledge now, apparently) based on CAT scans of the brains of 18-19 year olds. The study determined that the specific area of the brain which is crucial to grasping consequences–a necessity for making good decisions–hadn’t reached full physical development.

Do we have an area in the American brain that’s still in development? Is there some long-suppressed accountability gland that will one day develop fully and get us to think of the decisions we make and the effect that they will have?

It’s in recognizing the consequences of past bad decisions that we’re able to learn and grow. It takes maturity in order to see where we made bad decisions in our past and make the right ones going forward. Seeing changes in how teenagers think as they pass into adulthood is a great reward for those parents that raised their children properly.

To everyone but the bad parent, it’s all too obvious that a young adult is misbehaving. Everyone else can see the consequences of their offspring’s misbehavior but they can’t. The behavior of so many American young adults is appalling, and I blame bad parenting, or a lack of it.

It’s like we have a parent who blames everyone and everything for their child’s misbehavior, other than the child. This of course just encourages more immaturity and less responsibility. This is because maturity requires an individual to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, a function no one else can do for you.

So if countries have a bad parent, it should be obvious in the misbehavior of the children. Everyone in the neighborhood can see the bad apple, or bully if they turn out that way.

If we can’t learn from our mistakes, we are bound to repeat them. To the rest of the world we must be seen as that one family from which all the bad kids come, the one house where the cops are always stopping.

At some point, responsibility for bad parenting passes to the state, through institutionalization of the errant child. It’s then that the child understands that their actions bring consequences.

Maybe a bad kid is destined to be a societal misfit and reject. Maybe the parents did everything they could. Perhaps it takes more than bad parenting to turn a child into a problem.

The United States is a problem child. And the parent of our national policies–foreign, etc.–appears to be an immature, apathetic public and leaders disconnected from the consequences of their failed policies. Enabling the epic fail is of course the lack of choices guaranteed by a two-party system that offers plenty of tumult but nothing of substance, much less any way to disrupt the ongoing buffoonery.

Trump’s ascendance to the top of the GOP ticket exemplifies a crappy system based on unqualified candidates. It appears that the primary process involves weeding out qualified candidates or discouraging any people of substance from confronting the status quo.

And if the Presidency of Barack Obama is an example, what is said during campaigning is utterly the opposite of how they’ll behave once in office.

Change? Want change? This President has consistently supported the status quo and Establishment whenever possible. Rather than bring change, he’s demotivated vast numbers of young voters who took him at his word and saw what their participation brought–nothing.

If something came out of all that participation in our democracy, it was the truth that nothing would change, and that the status quo would deny them true representation from that point forward.

I don’t know if there’s some little tiny organ inside our collective brain that stores our epic fails, even those of the recent past. I’m still trying to figure out when the post-Vietnam mantra of “no more land wars in Asia” died out.

I guess our collective memory is too small to let our past mistakes linger on. Instead they’re washed as if by some great Memory Hole, banished to the realm of the past that we forgot.

The Vietnamese haven’t forgotten. Neither have the Iraqis. Remember them? The people whom we invaded although there was no evidence they’d been involved in terrorism. And the intelligence was not false but rather fabricated.

They have war crimes for a reason–they hold leaders accountable for their consequences of their actions. Innocent people–the victims of wanton cruelty and lawlessness–are protected on both sides when rules are followed. Yet we seem to have a way around that. Winners have the ability to rewrite history, to ignore whatever atrocities they’d committed, like frying 400,000 innocent people in Dresden in 1945.

We hear about how the bad guys did this or did that but maybe our record at winning wars has disconnected our collective mind from the consequences of our actions. What we apparently need is a defeat to be repeated every generation so we can begin to understand and to grow and mature. Lacking accountability we will just make more mistakes. And the consequences of our misbehavior appear to be escalating.

We’ve gone from the unlearned Vietnamese mistake to one called ISIS. We’ve gone from licking our wounds in a conventional war to opening up an endless and unwinnable occupation of Muslim lands which has become a rallying cry for our enemies.
Instead of selectively targeting insurgents as our President claims we have been indiscriminately murdering extra-judiciously through the use of drones. Over a thousand women and children have died. Are they acceptable collateral damage–implying that they are necessary to win–or are the mounting piles of dead innocents propaganda for our enemies?

So incompetent has our occupation been so far that Obama has resorted to a surge back into Iraq. And so veiled has the reentry of US troops into Iraq been that we only heard about the presence of American troops there after one had died.

As it did from the beginning, our occupation of Iraq has had no conditions for withdrawal. This is terrible strategy and puts our military in an open-ended policing role. Haven’t any of our leaders read about the English interventions into Iraq in the 1920’s. They spent a great deal of money, blood, and treasure only to get out, eventually realizing that the country, whose borders were drawn by European powers, in what was known as the Balfours Agreement, was ungovernable, a no-win Cluster F*ck.

At this point we must assume the continued use of hard power in the Middle East is the reason that we don’t have any real choice in political candidates. In this respect, both assumed candidates belong to the War Party, a euphemism for the Deep State and its pursuit of endless war. There’s an agenda, it’s hidden, and undemocratic. It revolves around the continuous flow of money to the Military and Security Industrial Complexes, while justifying a widening stream of lost rights for Americans.

The only logical conclusion to the deprivation of Americans’ rights and representation is revolution. I can’t see any way that the Deep State will be removed from the host.

Thomas Jefferson expected revolution every 20 years. As long as political outcomes are determined by a vetting process that denies candidates like Sanders, there won’t be representation for the American people and frustration/white rage will be vented through means less peaceful than voting.

Unable to change course, more and worse wars are the inevitable outcome along with the utterly unforeseen but thoroughly foreseeable retaliatory consequences. These are asymmetrical, unpredictable in scale or timing, and abetted by a flood of Muslim migrants into Europe–and soon the U.S., meaning more attacks are pending. (At least one of the attackers in Brussels, a Syrian, came in with the recent wave.)

Younger people, addled by a growing stream of toxic vaccines, have become unhealthy as a result and we will be made physically weaker as a people over time. They’ve been sold out and will have to pay the debts of the War Party in their blood.

If we were good parents, we wouldn’t be leaving them a legacy like this. As a matter of fact, there’s no way a good parent would ever let this happen to their children, jab by jab. Delegating control over the health of one’s children to the State demonstrates a level of gullibility and gross denial typical of only the worst parents. The consequences of the epic fail are sick and autistic children, with no one acknowledging the problem even as their numbers grow ever larger–in a case of epic denial.

We’re also chronically over-reliant on debt, a process that will continue as long as Quantitative Easing continues throwing money at the Financial Sector, and even more federal debt piles up with the crushing onslaught of entitlements and a weakening economy.

Those are topics for another post. Bottom line is that America seems doomed to repeat errors of the past, even when a total lack of any progress is apparent, like in pacifying Iraq through the use of hard power. We are pretending that we can surge our way out of the biggest mistake we’ve ever made.

If you’re convinced that the establishment is better for you then you’ll vote with the establishment.

A few generations ago what was best for the nation was the best for the people in it, and they’d vote their conscience first and their wallet second.

Nowadays it’s all wallet. Pro-establishment forces must include all those whom directly benefit from the status quo. Put in that box of establishment voters all those who earn their living from ongoing government spending.

Clearly many industries are dependent on the federal budget. For contractors, the Feds are a great employer. The highest concentration of millionaires is located in the suburbs of Washington, D.C..

I saw a map of every US county and its average resident’s income shaded by color. During the 2008-9 recession, the counties near Washington all stayed neutral as poorer area went red, or negative.

These people will all vote to continue the ongoing spending in Washington. Perhaps they know the system is unsustainable but they will be the last to suffer, tied so closely to the spigot as they are.

The beneficiaries of our current system have grown in number. Mitt Romney was correct in his assessment that a large percentage of Americans want their benefits to continue to flow.

Odd how the very rich and poor both have an incentive to keep a system running, even if such a system is financially unsustainable. Instead of criticizing this big chunk of useless eaters, perhaps Romney should have wooed them, as the candidate less likely to cut their benefits.

An ongoing piece of the federal pie is clearly at stake when the tenants of reason encourage more fiscal restraint and threaten to restrain the trough.

In a Marxist way, it could be said that the recipients of federal money are counter-revolutionaries. It is their political aim to continue to receive economic benefits. Their economic standing motivates their participation in the political process. In Marxist terms perhaps more accurate now than ever, the political system is run on behalf of the owners of the means of production.

The big problem politically is the lack of nationalistic fervor. I mean I just can’t see establishment forces working to support any ideology or belief system operating on a set of motives more morally relevant than self-interest.

And the people can see that. They can see that those in power mean to serve the moneyed interest, not them. They understand that the best interests of the people do not lie with an endless stream of borrowed capital, and that what is good for the Oligarchs is not good for the country.

The Oligarchs are globalized. Sure, they can play the nationalism card with the domestic audience. But once they’ve jetted off to Davos, you can bet all national loyalties fall to more lucrative opportunities that degrade working standards and wages so they can make more by deconstructing borders.

Unions get in the way of an Elysium-type world where employees have no workplace rights and the standard of living has declined to Third World levels. Clearly a big part of continuing the status quo is disempowering labor, and American manufacturing has been decimated by this offshoring, a sacrifice made quite willingly by our supposed protectors.

Transnational investments go where they want, where capital flows are unimpeded. The next stage in the devolution of the American economy could be controls over our money. Some proposals, like Larry Summers’ (Obama’s candidate for Secretary of the Treasury,) would destroy our currency.

A cashless society is an example of how deluded the establishmentarians have become. It shows how far they want to take the neoliberal experiment, and how little they think they have to worry about the political ramifications of crushing the American Middle Class.

By removing hundred dollar bills from circulation, people will have to use digital currency exclusively. And like so many things passed off as security necessities in the wake of 9-11, going cashless allows people’s spending to be tracked. (No, those nagging upgrade notices aren’t there to protect you; they’re simply posing as security items to force your ongoing obedience and compliance to arbitrary impositions from above, in this case the Master Control Program.)

Privacy has no place in the Orwellian world these people are creating right here and now. The idea is that individuals will do as Big Brother says. Of course no system, even the most totalitarian, can control the behavior of millions of independent actors. But they can sure try, and in so doing create a surveillance society that may stave off domestic political threats.

Dissent becomes a big problem for a small group of rulers when large numbers of angry voters can wield political power. Therefore a hallmark of establishmentarianism is the crushing of dissent. Totalitarian methods become acceptable when the elite’s own security–or more accurately its control over the masses–is threatened.

Just how far will they go? As far as they can. The establishment will use the machinery of the state–police, military, post-9/11 security controls, interrogation, and agents provocateur. They will use career blackballing to control whistleblowers whom they hate so for revealing the truth.

The establishment is concerned only with their own continued amalgamation of power and with countering any threats to that aim. When the establishment went global, it brought in a dangerous new dynamic–transnationalism.

I guess the rich have always identified more with each other than with the common man. We saw in the early 20th century what can happen when monarchies are replaced–war. There’ve always been wars in Europe but a clash of ideologies is more dangerous than a set of monarchs who can inspire nationalism, albeit less effectively when their nobility intermarry with those of other nations.

Ideologies transcend borders, and give people in one country reason to meddle with another–a surefire prescription for war. Nothing is more dangerous to the landed aristocracy than an ideology. Ideologies can’t be controlled by the establishment; like Marxism, they rise in opposition to the establishment.

The ideology that advocates the removal of borders is a dangerous one. Borders serve a purpose in protecting those in one nation from an absence of laws and rules that lies in an adjoining country.

Take Mexico for instance. Trump has proposed building a wall, and making the Mexicans pay for it. Of course the Mexicans have taken issue with that, as it is them that we seek to keep out. [Curiously, some Mexicans have taken to build a wall to keep us out–which would be mere comedy if not for the fact that net migration is higher to Mexico than the other way around!)

Mexico has laws and regulations that allow for more pollution and fewer workplace safeguards that Americans take for granted. Criminal organizations dominate both sides of the border but are allowed greater impunity where corruption is more rampant.

Without the border, there’s nothing to keep the US from becoming more like Mexico. Higher crime, lower wages, and an inferior standard of living will spread across borders where there is none.

It’s too late to stop the Third Worldization if the establishment has their way. Already life expectancy is dropping here and long-term unemployment persists. The unemployed have been forgotten on whichever side of the border they happen to reside. The Middle Class needs jobs, and private sources of economic activity dwindle (due to the lack of a Middle Class market) so too does dependency on government grow.

How many of Romney’s “47%” would vote if they knew their check would stop or shrink? The benefit of getting so many people on the dole is that they will participate politically in sustaining the status quo, or at least not act to change it if it means losing their check.

If they vote, the 47% presents a real threat. Revolutions have been started by a far, far smaller percentage of the population. I believe at the time of the Declaration of Independence, active support for independence was in the single digits.

Democracy is a system with weaknesses yet oftentimes people are blinded by nationalism into thinking it’s different this time, or it can’t happen here. So they’ll go with the majority–an approach wracked with issues. The Founders knew we needed to beware the risks of democracy but they also saw that the inclination of all governments was towards tyranny.

Democracy isn’t a problem for the establishment if they control the candidates. But this year, we may be in for a treat with the candidacy of Donald Trump. The man is clearly posing as an outsider. Ironically it was Mitt Romney who came out to criticize Trump, in a move which did more to solidify the public perception that Trump was anti-establishment. (Romney’s poll numbers have plummeted just as Trump’s have risen since the comments.)

The Republican establishment is clearly terrified of Trump. And it’s showing! The more they do to hinder Trump’s popularity, the more they increase it.

The establishment is clearly so used to believing that they control outcomes that the thought that they don’t, and the people do, shakes them to their core. The Emperor Has No Clothes analogy has been at work so long that the emperor and his sycophants are deeply disturbed that he may be in fact naked, and that the sycophants have been exposed as the liars they are.

Add up the numbers and things don’t bode well for the establishment or their candidates. In what I believe to be the ultimate sign of anti-establishmentarianism, huge numbers of Americans support both Trump and Sanders–who are seen as anti-establishment.

The typical solution to an unruly, ungovernable mob in a democracy is to control the candidates for whom they can vote. But Trump isn’t controllable–look no farther than the way he speaks, so crudely, unpolished, and prone to inflammatory prejudices. Like an average dude on the street perhaps–a person with whom many Americans–at least white ones–will identify.

We know from the Bush-Gore election of 2000 that Americans tend to vote for people with whom they identify. Clinton is seen as the establishment and many will not vote for her for that reason.

Paradoxically, establishment Democrats have done more to support Trump by going with Clinton than they are capable of perceiving. Liberals are incapable of grasping the scope of anger towards the Establishment. Therefore they don’t see the scope of the threat of going with an establishment candidate (or perceived to be) over an anti-establishmentarian (or perceived to be) like Sanders.

There’s no do-over. Once Sanders loses the Democratic primary to Clinton, anti-establishmentarians will have only one choice: Trump.

Lessons from 2000 have gone unheeded. Arrogance and presumptions emerge whenever big mistakes are forthcoming. And assuming the Republican establishment can’t dump Trump–because the other candidates are inadequate, among other reasons–the nomination of Clinton will assure that Trump garners a great deal of support from white people who will identify more with him than her.

Disturbingly for Trump, he lacks an open tent–a post-racial approach. He’s instead alienated non-whites. I saw that Romney captured 59% of the white vote in 2012 and Trump would need non-whites as he only controls 53% of the white vote. Non-whites now compromise up to 40% of the electorate, so I guess Clinton will be trying to get them to identify more with her.

The field of conventional economics tries to provide the tools needed to understand economics. Efforts to quantify the economy have been made, but even adherents to conventional economics understand the limitations in trying to apply theories to a field as diverse as economics. Nonetheless over the years the conventional assumptions take root in academic institutions and the like, where the knowledge is passed down, rarely changing although the theories are scrutinized when they appear to be ineffective.

The response to the 2008 crisis is an example of conventional economic theories failing to explain the problem. So it’s inevitable that solutions offered by conventional economics will not work.

The biggest crisis we’re facing is demographic. It’s important to understand that the Baby Boomers peak earning years are behind them. Few have much saved up, and already the cost of health care is rising rapidly due to the number of aged. Any economics solution that doesn’t consider demographics is doomed to fail.

We need to distinguish between systemic problems and those we can fix. Systemic problems are those which the system is incapable of addressing without changing the system.

The best example of systemic failure in economics is Japan from 1991 to the present. No matter what the Japanese try to do, they can get little growth out of their economy.

A systemic problem requires change at the system level, and more significantly demand a change in policy direction using new assumptions and unconventional analysis.

Any country with a big bureaucracy naturally is terrified of change. It was Iceland that actually changed its banking system after the 2008 crisis. Bankers were prosecuted and jailed for the fraud they committed–hundreds jailed as opposed to only two in the entire U.S..

Of course the global financial establishment punished Iceland in the short-term, but the country has recovered nicely. Whatever pain it suffered in jettisoning the conventional banking system it has since converted into a pro-Main Street banking system that isn’t dependent on central bank intervention, largely in the form of foreign loans from the IMF.

A second big systemic issue is the issuance of money and overabundance of money. This has led to speculative bubbles. It’s also led to moral hazard among many large banks–the belief that no matter how badly they manage their money, they’ll get bailed out and thus are free to lose as much money as they want.

Of course the unending replenishment of money allows the banks to behave badly. Yet no matter how bad they seem to get, the government can only fine them, fines that are paid by the endless fountain of nearly free money they can borrow from the Federal Reserve, if they’re big enough.

The regulations, you see, are not about making banking safer for consumers but rather are meant to serve a perverted system that forces arduous regulatory requirements on smaller competitors and shields bankers from the legal consequences of their criminal activity.

The ultimate systemic perversion is the way that the banking cartel has been allowed to borrow for essentially nothing, and lend at very high interest rates.

Clearly paying interest is an economic negative. We don’ hear in the corporate media scarcely a word about how the monetary system works. For if we did, as Henry Ford said, there’d be revolution by morning.

What kind of country lets its banks charge the poor such userous rates? What benefit is there to redirecting wages into ridiculously high rates of interest?

The Nazi example is the best. They nationalized the banks and made interest-free loans available to small businesses, albeit with piles of restrictions no doubt. They rose politically because they implemented policies removing the drag of interest, which doesn’t need to be charged except by a system beholden to the bankers. (In Europe Jews had been limited to fields like banking, so anti-Semitism popularized the dismantlement of the German banking system.)

If you really want an economy to grow, you build Main Street. Helping Wall Street not only doesn’t impact Main Street–as the current US example is proving–it drains future growth. Why? Because the engines of future prosperity aren’t able to afford the debt they must incur to start their businesses.

The entrepreneurial capacity of this country is unfathomable. Given the right financing, Main Street can really shine. Ironically, a real Main Street recovery helps Wall Street! Medium and larger business succeed when small business are formed and profit. Look at the 1990’s–when Boomers were reaching their peak earning years, and huge sums were moving into retirement accounts, fueling an unprecedented bull market.

Of course there are systemic challenges that the Main Street economy must face. Starting businesses isn’t easy. But don’t underestimate the entrepreneurial mindset–hard work and a can-do attitude really can make things happen.

One trap conventional economists fall into is their belief in the value of top-down architecture for economic recovery. By this, I mean they are so convinced that a couple tweaks of key economic instruments like interest rates will lead to some miraculous, trickle down effect wherein all boats rise–or at least they want to be seen that way.

How disconnected our politicians have grown! The money interest surrounds them, funds academics, and feeds their egos and campaign chests. It’s always been bad but now the cronyism has reached extreme heights.

Wealth inequity is the most glaring example of failure of an economic recovery. The flow of money in the form of interest, coupled with the nearly free money available to borrow–has led to a reverse Robin Hood and the Main Street economy shows it. Main Street is a challenging environment, and conventional analysis shuns risk in favor of more controlled outcomes.

I saw in the news recently that some fund manager was shocked at the poverty of the homeless on the street. How can it be this bad–I can see him thinking–somebody should be taking care of these people.

Well, gross inequity is a horrible sight and of course those with wealth and influence go out of their way to avoid seeing how bad it is on the other side. So when the two meet, of course the privileged side can be quite shocked and confused at the real economic costs of inequity and how horribly destitute a population subject to unregulated capitalist system can become.

This reminds me of the Buddha’s first hours outside the palace where he was raised. He saw death and sickness for the first time, and realized human existence was suffering.

Note how he didn’t understand things while in the palace; it took leaving the palace to escape ignorance, in this case of how bad things were out in the streets of ancient India.

How little things have changed. Today we see in our streets the consequences of a system that exploits the young and the poor, even to the point of social decay. Instead of supporting job and business formation on Main Street, our top-down system aggregates more and more wealth to those with access to cheap capital: the already rich.

Success in our society is more a product of having money than it is about working hard. Called social mobility, the chance that an American will do better than their parents has dropped below that of European countries.

Do Americans want this? Polls show that regulation has a place but the political will to make changes simply isn’t there. Because it’s a top-down system, with unrestricted corporate lobbying, decisions are made far from Main Street in the cozy corridors of power in our capital. A statist system with a central banking cartel won’t allow changes that reduce the power and control that such a system offers. There are simply too many pigs too deep in the trough with too much power and too little conscience.

The insulation of the rich and politicians no doubt helps sustain the myth that the nation’s problems can be solved out of Washington, in a system unchanged from that which lead us into the crisis. Hiding in the palace leaves one’s conscience un-assailed, and suffering that goes unseen is un-felt.

People believe what they want to believe. Those with wealth want to believe that the existing system serves their interest. And to some degree it does. But if the suffering on Main Street continues to increase, at some point the bulk of the people will rise up against the existing order.

The borrowing is sustainable in the short term. The Federal Reserve can keep the chronically deficit-ridden federal budget from collapsing entirely. It can buy the government’s debt and keep financing the deficits.

Predictably, the politicians of both parties will take advantage of the Fed’s never-ending largess, to borrow and spend in ways neither fruitful nor practical, like giant aircraft carriers or glorious projects that appease the egos of the wealthy and their puppets in the political class.

The banks and Federal Reserve must know that eventually the greed and incompetence of their vetted politicians will crush the entire economy, not only that of Main Street but Wall Street, too.

It’s already happening. The price of gold rises dramatically. Manipulation of the price of Comex contracts-not to be confused with real physical gold–has been ongoing.

It’s doubtful that your average economics major has heard of the President’s Working Group on the Capital Markets–the Plunge Protection Team, or PPT. Yet the current system is doing everything it can to sanitize the markets in such a way as to seem much more stable than they really are.

The great fear is that investors will make huge withdrawals that will trigger a collapse in the markets. The way it is, so many algos are just waiting for these kind of market events, in order to exploit the volatility. With a lack of regulation, restraining this kind of trading is no longer feasible, except perhaps through a financial transaction tax, a tax that has zero chance of passage–or about as much as Bernie has through a primary system designed to stop a populist like him.

Advertisements

]]>https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/119/feed/0johnbpeeblesYou vote, they counthttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/you-vote-they-count/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/you-vote-they-count/#respondWed, 03 Feb 2016 21:36:32 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=94Continue reading You vote, they count]]>I write about the details emerging from the Iowa caucuses. I’d been active prior to event in both my Facebook as well as with two blogs where I comment frequently, zerohedge.com and opednews.com.

It appears the results were rigged to favor a Cruz victory over Trump.

I’d posted that HRC was Sanders’ designated down-bringer. I’d bemoaned the fact that the establishment hadn’t found a down-bringer for Trump.

Well, we discovered it: the vote-counting software! You probably thought Black Box Voting had gone away. No, whenever results are close and the establishment gets nervous, it’s time to hack the vote!

Rather than parking the hackable voting machines out back, some municipalities resold them. It’s impossible to audit the results on these machines. Go to an HBO documentary on black box voting called “Hacking Democracy.” You’ll see a full technical description how to hack these machines in such a way as to leave no trace.

OK, so we don’t know how far off the machines were. We also don’t know if electronic hacking was the only criminal method used in counting the vote.

Apparently six precincts in Iowa were decided for Hillary by a flip of a coin. That’s right–American democracy replaced by seemingly random flips of a coin. How we have fallen (and still are falling.)

Of course all the coin flips came down in favor of the establishment candidate. I suppose that you knew that already, or you’d still have faith in the integrity of the voting process.

And of course votes were lost. I’m still trying to figure out which votes weren’t counted but it’s a safe bet Sanders paper ballots ended up in the trash can (or incinerator) far more frequently than his competitor.

Can we presume fraud when the results differ radically from poll numbers? Not necessarily if the recorded votes are close to pre-election polls. One article I read put the amount of post-doctored votes at a maximum of 10 percent. Anything more will look too suspicious. (Link)

It’s the GOP side of the Iowa caucuses where the electronic vote rigging took place. Trump was quick to tweet how Cruz had stolen the election.

Cruz was not born in the United States so he’s ineligible to be President. I wonder when this truth will emerge. I guess he could go on to win the Republican nomination but just when exactly would his eligibility be challenged?

I can’t see how the Republicans don’t know about Cruz’s nation of birth problem. Any vote for Cruz is a vote for an ineligible candidate. And if he makes the ticket, he will be challenged in court.

You would think legal-minded Republicans would be concerned that they were putting forth a candidate unelectable not in the General Election but rather on legal grounds.

Maybe those who know the truth of Cruz’s nation of birth are “in on it,” are quietly waiting in the wings to sabotage him when and if he wins the nomination.

So if there is some establishmentarian guru with his hand on the vote counting software, it could be a pro-Hillary faction doing it on the Republican side. Remember with electronic vote tabulating, it could be anyone controlling the count, not necessarily even someone from the same political party.

If the votes were tabulated by an establishmentarian faction, their support would be visible both in beefing up the pro-establishmentarian candidate of choice and putting forth ineligible or weaker candidates in the other party.

Motive for this kind of hacking is there. And the technology permits it. And the absence of measures for auditing or reviewing the “final” numbers is a big red flag.

What is Iowa’s protocol for recounts? If there’s a story that violates truth in voting, it won’t appear in the corporate media, whose chief purpose is clearly to peddle information favorable to establishmentarian causes.

Therefore it follows that voting irregularities will be unreported. The crime–yes, it is a felony–of changing people’s vote has been ignored because the establishment has subverted the democratic process, not only at the voting booth but in the media before and after votes are reported.

Please protect your right to vote, a right which means absolutely nothing to the Oligarchs and establishment.

Corporate fraternization with the Ruling Elite has fostered a media environment where lies are sold as truth and anomalies in the voting process intentionally ignored.

Those who benefit from continued control over the political process will use whatever means available to persecute anti-establishment candidates like Sanders.

A system that denies Americans their right to vote, and falsifies results, is an ongoing conspiracy against our people. It also means that every past election result using Black Box Voting has to be called into question.

Without investigations into election wrong-doing, there is no accountability for the criminals. If criminals aren’t held accountable under the law, then this country is no longer ruled by law but by men above the law, for their own purposes.

It’s not enough to say that irregularities occurred. Until evidence of vote fraud is thoroughly investigated by impartial parties, the government of this country must be considered illegitimate and its leadership compromised.

The present system is run by many illegitimately elected persons.

Those who’ve made their way into the halls of Washington’s political fraternity through electronic vote fraud and other felonious tools need to be removed.

Incumbents are clearly vulnerable to control mechanisms used by the vote counters and the dark moneyed interest they represent.

There are no limits to this blackmail. The politician will have no choice but to do the bidding of those that get them into office. Should they resist the demands of their handlers, they’ll see themselves lose to vote fraud in the next primary or general election.

The voting fraud therefore opens up a direct pathway through which manipulation of policy for criminal purposes can occur.

It’s probably better that our politicians not even know the results were tweaked. That way they can dodge accountability later.

While politicians may not know about vote fraud, I’m sure they’ll be told well in advance of the next election what could happen by those who committed the fraud.

Huge numbers of “private security contractors” (800,000+) are being used by the government against political enemies of the establishment. Who could be so naive to think that incumbent politicians wouldn’t use the “security” assets in their control for purposes of maintaining control over the electoral process?

Black box voting has allowed involvement in the political process by crime syndicates and others who benefit from rigging election results, and owning the politicians they get elected.

Vote manipulation isn’t new, with electronic vote fraud it is however harder to spot, and with a total lack of trace-ability, Americans will suffer under a voting system that intentionally defrauds them of their right to vote.

Like any criminal activity, there’s usually a financial purpose behind their activities. Unless an audit-able, hack-proof voting system can come into use, Americans will be governed by people who’ve risen to power based on criminal vote fraud.

In fact, this makes the U.S. an occupied country by denying representation to the people. Until the right to vote can be assured, and results tabulated impartially, the legitimacy of every action by our government, and every policy that contradicts what the majority of Americans believe should be questioned.

Once the law is unequally applied, it becomes irrelevant. To restore America, we have to restore the credibility of our government. The absolute right to vote is the central pining upon which our system of government depends. With representation, there is no legitimate government.

Advertisements

]]>https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/you-vote-they-count/feed/0johnbpeeblesFunding by Thefthttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/76/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/76/#respondMon, 18 Jan 2016 21:25:51 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=76Continue reading Funding by Theft]]>Infrastructure needs in the U.S. have been put at upwards of $3 trillion. This is money needed now. And of all the billions Washington will spend, this will actually help our children by retaining a first class infrastructure vital in a competitive global economy.

Infrastructure spending is a win-win because it may create debt but it stimulates the economy. Unlike virtually any of the borrowing (which is now over 1/3 of all federal spending) passed on to the next generation, the improved infrastructure will still be there if it’s done right.

“On December 4, the last day the Department of Transportation was authorized to cut checks for highway and transit projects, President Obama signed a 1,300-page $305-billion transportation infrastructure bill that renewed existing highway and transit programs. According to America’s civil engineers, the sum was not nearly enough for all the work that needs to be done. But the bill was nevertheless considered a landmark achievement, because Congress has not been able to agree on how to fund a long-term highway and transit bill since 2005.”

Money is not there. The spending has drained the cash reserves and according to the article the Federal government must reach into bank deposits.

Mike Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com, who provided the link, has described the money issuing process as one where:

“The moment that first pretty-printed piece of paper goes into circulation, more money is owed to that private central bank than actually exists, which means the debt can never be paid off.” [link]

Rivero doesn’t mind that the money for this recent highway bill is being drained from bank coffers. I disagree; governmental theft (evidenced in singular, ad hoc events like this money grab rather than systematically, through taxation) will get ever worse. Once emboldened by getting away with it, the federal burglar will move on to other asset targets.

Creating money can be done for virtually nothing. As the blacklistednews.com article says, Lincoln issued greenbacks to pay for all kinds of things. The Nazis made interest-free loans to small businesses a part of their economic package, and it worked, cementing an economic recovery and political credence with the middle class.

No interest need be paid! There’s nothing that says new money need come with a cost added on top.

It must come as shocking news: there’s no reason that borrowers have to pay any interest at all. Henry Ford perhaps said it best when he said that if Americans knew how their monetary system worked, there would be revolution by morning.

The banks, a for-profit entity, make a juicy target but as Rivero says there is no eleventh marble. If no new net money is coming in, then the whole system croaks because it is dependent on new money being lent–at interest–, and the consumer is tapped out.

If the system released money without interest, then money would have less value. The Federal Reserve is there for a reason–ostensibly to protect our money supply from devaluation through inflation.

Interest rates do attach a value for money, bestowing a value beyond what it buys. With higher interest rates, less money is available to lend, and lending to consumers has been a mainstay for many years.

Now the average consumer is simply not buying like they used to, reflected in declining global trade and retail sales, with exceptions. Because the economy is 70% based on consumer spending, when that goes so too does lending, and no new money comes in.

The Main Street economy simply doesn’t have the means to grow, so taxation will have to climb. In a cruel replay of the 1970’s, when the Rust Belt spread across the industrial economy of the American Northeast, where businesses were shuttered and the shrinking tax base forced further relocations due to higher tax burdens.

What are the lower levels of government to do? The Federal Government can plunder the banks. It can force the Federal Reserve to buy its bonds. But where is there actual money coming from? I mean the government has so much debt that more and more tax revenue will have to go into servicing that debt.

That raises the strong possibility of hyper-inflation. Once prices rise–they aren’t now, at least uniformly–the temptation to create more and more money will be there. We saw this in post-World War I Weimar Germany.

Debasement of the currency an happen slowly but if the money simply isn’t there, the currency will go from slower debasement to more rapid devaluation. This scenario is made more likely if interest rates rise. Interest could cost upwards of a half-trillion dollars per year for a climb in rates of just a percentage point higher. (Not a bad profit for holders of the newly issued debt–and an attractive target for governments requisitioning like they used to pay for this Highway Bill.)

One scenario is a hyperinflationary depression. I’d describe that as money-creation used to avert the effects of a shrinking economy. The more money that is produced/distributed/lent to meet the terms of the loan, the less future purchasing power that money will have. So creditors will want more interest in return for for their loans, which should in theory slow down the spending.

But a Keynesian approach makes government the spender of last resort. If people aren’t making or spending more, then the government is supposed to step in and stimulate the economy through deficit spending. But the government budget has been in deficit for so long–even the Clinton years saw budget shenanigans–that borrowing has become standard practice. Add in normalcy bias–that the government will always be able to sell its debt–and a recipe for disaster stews on the stove top.

The predilection to spend, combined with the Citizens United takeover of Federal Government lobbying means that we can’t stop spending. Our government is a debt addict in denial whose can only be stopped by a complete cutoff of all credit.

Instead the debt addict has a money machine in the back, and they’re leaning on the Federal Reserve to keep the money coming. The Fed is clearly co-dependent on the Feds–without Congressional approval, the Charter of the Fed could be revoked.

The relationship between bankers in this system of money creation has brought them a level of control through the interest rate mechanism. But as I’m discovering, the Federal Funds Rate (FFR) may be decoupling from other debt instruments, notably Floating Interest Rate debt.

The Floating Interest loans move in value but are a recent creation. It’s unknown how all the private money out there will react with changes in interest rates, which changes in the FFR are meant to send in one way or the other.

The key axiom in lending to the government is the presumption that the government can just print money up to meet its obligations. Putting the Federal Reserve in the middle–between the government and its money–has let the banks profit from government borrowing, yes, but it’s also been key in limiting government spending. If money can be spent in infinite quantities by the government, it’s been proven I think, it will be overspent and too much will be borrowed, forcing a default or hyperinflation.

The shortening gaps between federal funding crises that we’ve been experiencing (budget brinkmanship) has raised the risk of a default. Being co-dependent, the Federal Reserve will need to feed its addict brother some cash or decides–at great risk to itself–not to come up with the cash.

The banks do make a juicy target. This is something the “great minds” in the financial industry have forgotten–the long-term. Addictions grow over time, and the denial forces a spiral of delusion. The addict–in this case Washington with its many troughs and tentacles–will never admit the scope of the problem.

Whatever hope of self-control we had is gone. Fiscal conservatism has been replaced by social conservatism, which capitalizes on our differences, to make us easier to rule. The Establishment is incapable of restraint–whereas in the past it might have been able to contain the beast, now it must service the addict’s growing hunger.

Addressing the temptation to overspend, the blacklistednews.com article says:
“The reality is that nearly all hyperinflations stem from a collapse of foreign exchange as a result of having to pay debt service.”

So we need not worry about the spending as much as the debt, but the spending simply won’t be able to continue. The money simply isn’t there. In a waning economy, sources of revenue dry up; the government will go searching to plunder other sources of revenue, calling it a tax.

Any incoming revenue will go to pay the interest on the debt. Like a debt junkie, the government will rob Peter to pay Paul. At some point borrowing will not be enough. Stealing will be the only way the federal machine will be able to get its fix and keep it rolling, til it’s time for another fix. With all the endless wars, massive medical cost rises (esp. Medicare.), Social Security insolvency, etc., which of these is Peter and which is Paul?

Advertisements

]]>https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/76/feed/0johnbpeeblesCorporate Rulehttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/61/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/61/#respondTue, 05 Jan 2016 20:15:47 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=61Continue reading Corporate Rule]]>We have a new form of government: corporatism. Policies are determined by the most lobbying influence.

Thanks to the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, corporations are able to give unlimited amounts to politicians.

This influence-peddling has brought unprecedented changes in the nation’s laws to accommodate the pleads of industry.

The latter change occurred as part of the infamous Omnibus Budget passed at the end of 2015.

Nowhere was the submission of our government to corporate rule more evident than in the Omnibus. Passed at the last moment, and containing numerous giveaways to corporate masters, the Omnibus gave tax-and-spend Democrats more spending, and borrow-and-spend Republicans more spending.

The next devolution will be government policies that restrict competition. This process requires weakening the Middle Class and getting them to accept the loss of their safety net.

Multinational corporations are no longer constrained by border–an accomplishment that’s taken decades to achieve. To pursue the lowest labor costs, corporations have offshored and downsized. Many industries simply no longer exist in the developed world.

In cases like Germany, where labor laws protect more of the workforce, especially in manufacturing, huge numbers of immigrants have been brought in. Average Germans are now at risk of losing their jobs and government safety net as the public trough is emptied due to the cost of absorbing the million new immigrants.

The chief purpose of the migratory submission is to make the costs of the welfare state so high as to “starve the beast,” a term used by Grover Norquist to describe a process of eviscerating government finances to the point social programs–a bastion of support–can’t be paid for. The Greeks are experiencing this kind of austerity.

In America social security has been referred to as the “third rail of American politics.” Votes coming from recipients of government aid are a major threat to the Right, or at least that portion of the Right which pursues corporatist aims. This was the “47%” that Mitt Romney referred to.

As I wrote some time back in “Is the Tea Party waiting to burst out of the GOP’s chest?” at OpEdNews.com:

“The Tea Party can’t change the Establishment from within as it is likely to be corrupted by it.”

Within the GOP, the fiscally conservative Tea Party agenda has been repressed and the pro-corporate agenda laid atop. In this way fiscal responsibility doesn’t threaten the established troughs. Of course the Military Industrial Complex is front and center, being the largest of any recurring recipient of federal money.

As the Tea Party knew, federal borrowing is unsustainable. Lacking an understanding of how Washington really works, TP idealism died a quick death. Populist policies suffocate in the corrupted guts of the federal machine, with all its hangers-on and entitlements safeguarding the status quo from any meaningful change.

Norquist and the Tea Partiers were right to speak of reining in federal spending but political competition is the primary motive, not betterment of our society through more responsible government.

The “any crisis is a good crisis” modality has affixed itself to the political agenda of both parties. In this regard, true fiscal conservatism can’t–nor will it ever–find a home within either party.

Interesting also how the social divides between Americans force us to separate from each other. If anything, this suggests that the Right-Left divide is permanent. Maybe a populist leader could surmount the social divide and address real issues that needs to be dealt with, like the hordes of un-vetted Muslims immigrants slated for entry under the Omnibus.

Trump represents the biggest threat to the status quo. His popularity allows him to transcend the Washington-centric morass of complacency and concession to corporate authority and the control of money over politics.

He may not make things better but he certainly can’t make them worse in the medium-to long-term. We’ve sold out our futures and eventually the economy will pay us back for our lack of concern for budget fundamentals and sustainability.

Already college debt tops $1.2 trillion, bigger than credit cards. With so little income available, younger people can’t afford homes. The numbers of young living with parents is at a record high.

Isn’t it obvious that the long-term future has been sold out? Ultimately this will hurt us–yes that “we” we tend not to think about nearly as often as me–more than the status quo helps.

I don’t see good things happening from the amount of debt that’s piling up. Unemployed due to offshoring, no one can afford the Boomer’s overpriced houses, their values will wither. Lending is tight and interest rates are headed higher.

Growth will stall and portfolios suffer, so the rich won’t escape the shortsightedness of an economy preying on its young and their future prospects for financial independence.

I guess it’s the myopia of greed that keeps the rich from thinking past their own immediate needs. There’s collectivism, yes, but it’s more of an Oligarchical form of Collectivism, like Orwell wrote about, not one that attempts to benefit the bees in the hive but rather those in charge, on the grounds that the profits brought in will “trickle down.”

One thing we’re seeing is that what benefits the Top is utterly unconnected to that which benefits the Bottom. Take military pay. Our soldiers are qualifying for food stamps but corporate contractors are receiving record amounts. Rhetorically, military spending is for our defense, and patriotic. In reality, the spending fattens the pigs already at the trough.

This nearsightedness has decimated our readiness and contributed to a serious technological deficiency on the battlefield, one which is already affecting the balance of power in Syria and Iraq. The Russians new anti-air missiles are being exported to China and Iran. They have a new mobile ICBM that can’t be found or tracked. We are–in short–falling behind technologically.

I guess we’ll discover how far behind we’ve fallen when the next conflict arrives. Politicians are already cheer-leading for more defense spending; one wonders how far they’ll push their mouths to stir up more trouble if the people really knew where their spending/borrowing went, and how the overspending contributes to a degradation of our fighting capability.

Washington can’t change from within; this we see quite clearly with Obama’s failure to bring change. If anything, Obama’s presidency has descended from its early rhetorical heights in its praise of change to a complete sell-out to every entrenched Washington interest.

At no point have any truly democratic reforms been able to pass up from the people to the government. This non-democratic process illustrates how far the conversion to corporate rule we’ve gone.

I guess any fiscal conservatives left may see a total destruction of the entire Washington establishment as the only way to reform spending. No one has come forward with an alternative system.

Americans will be suffering when Weimar-era inflation floods our economy. The Austrian school of economics deduces that an imperial economy at its apex or decline thereafter will shrink due to overreach–this we know. I can’t see any avoiding of the final outcome, but not resisting just allows the D.C. status quo to further damage the long-term interests of this country.

Hastening a collapse might have its good points. It’ll be over more quickly. And the parties benefiting from the status quo–who are clearly trying to sustain it–will have less time to ride the federal system, sucking off it like parasites.

No real transition is ever easy, especially not as easy as casting a vote for a candidate who says he will bring change. The danger is that we delude ourselves into thinking we can have the rain without the lightning, as Frederick Douglas said.

The democratic process requires vigilance and participation. Many citizens are simply overburdened with work and day-to-day challenges to meet the requirements of the democratic process.

From a conspirator’s point of view, a dumbed-down, overworked populace makes governance that much easier. Take primaries. With a turnout ratio as low as 14%, a single primary voter will be 7 times more powerful than as if everyone participated. In political districts where one party dominates, the primary likely determines the winner of the General Election. This effect is even more pronounced in state and local elections. Even though one person gets a single vote, it counts as if they’d voted seven times.

Advertisements

]]>https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/61/feed/0johnbpeeblesWe’ve been sold outhttps://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/weve-been-sold-out/
https://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/weve-been-sold-out/#respondMon, 21 Dec 2015 18:48:53 +0000http://johnbpeebles.wordpress.com/?p=51Continue reading We’ve been sold out]]>Naomi Klein’s disaster capitalism is a process whereby the private sector capitalizes on a public failure or natural disaster. Through its inefficiency, government functions can be outsourced in the crisis reply.

The cost to government is irrelevant. The amount financed, passed onto taxpayers is not a problem for the recipients of contract money.

Disaster capitalism is an insidious way to find profits from the failures of government. As an example, contractors working at a gold mine slurry retention dam in western Colorado might let the dam corrode to the point collapse become inevitable. Then the toxic slurry pollutes a nearby river. Then a more expensive clean-up–read $400 million new water purification plant–becomes necessary. Great for that company–if it gets the contract.

As Rahm Emmanuel, the current mayor of Chicago, once said, “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The easiest way to profit from crisis is to let things get so bad that only government can solve the problem, then privatize and monetize the response.

The Civic Opera Building, a recent new landmark in Rahm’s much-indebted and much-beloved city graces our photograph. The might civic center cost over a billion dollars, looks impressive in a Soviet-style way, but is an example of money spent by government that helps the contractors who build it more than the people who must pay for it.

The citizens are faced with the debt and perpetual interest on that debt. With no net capital assets–merely the power to tax–the city is bankrupt and the costs of spending on the giant structure are passed through to already tax-beleaguered Chicagoans while the contractors escape with millions in profits.

It’s not a coincidence the zip codes with the highest net worth are clustered around Washington, D.C.. These suburbs are where federal contractors live.

Disaster capitalism drains public wealth (or in the federal case, adds debt) which is in fact stealing from children and future generations, an inter-generational crime that both parties in Congress are willing to ignore. I wonder if a group of young adults would be looking at the spiraling debt in the same way our crop of Congresspeople are.

A group of kids launched a lawsuit against a real estate developer in Mexico. Their success in the courts is made possible on the legal grounds that the rights of young people are being denied by over-development and environmental degradation (profits now) with the costs deferred.

We know that damages from future hurricanes are made much higher when mangroves and coastal vegetation are cut out, as was at risk of development in the Mexican case. (I remember hearing during Hurricane Katrina that every quarter mile of vegetation cuts storm surge by an entire foot.)

The tenants of reason and the long-term collective interest, which form the heart of Good Governance, are ignored when the plutocrats own the political process. Submission by the political class to the plutocratic “eternal” interest allows the perversion of the system to worsen. Wealth inequity rises. Negative consequences emerge both in the short-run and over the longer term, which college debt-burdened young people will have to sustain, baring a debt reset.

The debt created by increased government spending provides interests to the lenders, who in this case are the banks. Dating back many centuries, banks and the plutocrats have profitted immensely from war and government overspending. Lincoln warned of them.

The British Lord Palmerston is often quoted as saying that government was made up not from the common interest, only interests. {In actuality he said, “Britain had no eternal alliess and no perpetual enemies, only interests that were eternal and perpetual…”
Source: https://politicalscience.byu.edu/Syllabi/F08/Champion_170_F08.pdf
}

Lord Palmerston meant that decisions at the highest levels were not made based on the benefit to the nation but rather on the benefit to a cadre of super-rich. He made no distinction between enemies and allies, diplomatically speaking. Allies could come; allies could go, enemies could as well.

The “eternal and perpetual…interest” is a veiled reference to mercantile interests that were dominating England and the global economy at the end of the 19th Century. Like politicians today, the lords at that time were beholden to the interests of the merchant class, which had spread out to increase trade, which strengthened England.

The political system here today is beholden to the same interest as the British then. No matter how lofty the name or entitled the privilege, even the Clintons and Bushs must tow the corporate line.

Money exerts total control over our political process. We saw that with the passage of the Omnibus budget. Budget brinkmanship pushed the 2200-page bill to within a hair of having no budget.

Rather than actually read the bill, both bodies of Congress passed the bill. Dissenters consisted of Republican budget diehards and social democrats like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Adding to the resistance would have been anyone who’d actually read the part funding the immigration of 100,000 Muslims into the US, including 10,000 Syrians next year. If there are any civil libertarians left in Congress, they’d certainly not read the draconian CISA amendment added into the Omnibus before voting for it.

Sanders’ poll numbers are considerably better than Hillary’s. In theoretical head-to-head match ups, Sanders does better against every Republican candidate. Paradoxically, Sanders is at odds with the Hillary-dominated DNC, and some dispute over access to voter data has erupted.

Hillary is the presumptive candidate but I am going to have save discussion of the White House race for as late as possible, as it rapidly grows tiresome.